Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I am thinking of a T today... Anyone see or know of any > reasons for not doing so? As far as Jens and I have been able to determine, there are no remaining edge cases once the critical patch in STATUS is applied to undo

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yann Ylavic > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Yann Ylavic

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Yann Ylavic

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Yann Ylavic > wrote: > >> > >> I don't see where lbmethod_heartbeat depends on

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> I don't see where lbmethod_heartbeat depends on mod_heartmonitor in >> the code, but it seems to require mod_slotmem_shm though. > > My bad,

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > I don't see where lbmethod_heartbeat depends on mod_heartmonitor in > the code, but it seems to require mod_slotmem_shm though. My bad, mod_heartmonitor is required too.

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 4:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:46 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> >> >> I suppose this would have been the more accurate toggle, in the first >> place? >> Any reason we would build lbmethods

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On 06/28/2016 04:15 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:46 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > I suppose this would have been the more accurate toggle, in the first > place? > Any reason we would build lbmethods

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:46 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > I suppose this would have been the more accurate toggle, in the first > place? > Any reason we would build lbmethods without balancer? > > enable_lbmethod_byrequests=$enable_proxy_balancer >

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I am thinking of a T today... Anyone see or know of any > reasons for not doing so? > Of the changes we just backported, there is one side effect, Jens wasn't imagining things. From this query... grep -E "^[

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

+1 (Unless the mod_proxy connection cleanup improvements slip in there, then I'd like to test this more). > Am 28.06.2016 um 13:41 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > I am thinking of a T today... Anyone see or know of any > reasons for not doing so? Or anyone wish to make uninformed

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

I am thinking of a T today... Anyone see or know of any reasons for not doing so? Or anyone wish to make uninformed or incorrect assumptions (with veiled threats) against a T for no valid reason other than it's an opportunity to do so? > On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Jim Jagielski

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jens Schleusener wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Jens Schleusener

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jens Schleusener < jens.schleuse...@t-online.de> wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Jens Schleusener < >> jens.schleuse...@t-online.de> wrote: >> >> 1) Just a pure ./configure (probably equivalent to using

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Jens Schleusener wrote: ... good news. So now nearly superfluous info but just for completeness: Your first patch for modules/proxy/config.m4 sent at "Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:32:02

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Things are still too loosey-goosey... I am going to wait until the start of next week to (likely) T and give some time for the churn to stabilize.

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Jens Schleusener wrote: Just for curiosity I copied the soure code via  svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x  src/httpd-2.4.x> ./buildconf  

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Jens Schleusener < jens.schleuse...@t-online.de> wrote: > Just for curiosity I copied the soure code via > > svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x > > src/httpd-2.4.x> ./buildconf > > src/httpd-2.4.x> ./configure

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > The patch appears to be as simple as; > ... > Close, not quite. The defect is actually in... if test "$enable_proxy" = "shared"; then proxy_mods_enable=shared elif test "$enable_proxy" = "yes"; then

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

The patch appears to be as simple as; Index: modules/proxy/config.m4 === --- modules/proxy/config.m4 (revision 1749791) +++ modules/proxy/config.m4 (working copy) @@ -59,14 +59,13 @@ APACHE_MODULE(proxy_balancer, Apache proxy

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

There is still a reproducible edge case here, thanks for the report (focused on the later half of your email). Nothing unusual about your ./buildconf environment. Also --enable-modules=few exhibits the same behavior. Will have an update in the next 30 minutes. On Jun 23, 2016 7:10 AM, "William

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Ugg... Thanks for the test and the feedback. Will hold off and look into it. > On Jun 23, 2016, at 7:13 AM, Jens Schleusener > wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Subj sez it all... afaict, there are no showstoppers and >> no outstanding

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Jun 23, 2016 6:13 AM, "Jens Schleusener" wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Subj sez it all... afaict, there are no showstoppers and >> no outstanding issues (none seen in STATUS, or noted as >> such on any Email threads). >> >> So...

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Jim Jagielski wrote: Subj sez it all... afaict, there are no showstoppers and no outstanding issues (none seen in STATUS, or noted as such on any Email threads). So... anyone opposed to a T tomorrow in the hopes of getting this out to people by the start of next week??

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Well, perl seems to be at the expected place but perlsub.pod seems to be nowhere. Must be an issue on my test environment or a file not included in my distro or a change between perl 5.18 and 5.22 Thx for your time and explanation. CJ Le 23/06/2016 à 10:55, Stefan Eissing a écrit : As

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Did not have mod_cgi loaded. Now: t/filter/case.t .. [Thu Jun 23 10:50:33.548696 2016] [so:warn] [pid 57617:tid 140735287451648] AH01574: module cgid_module is already loaded, skipping 1..4 # Running under perl version 5.018002 for darwin # Current time local: Thu Jun 23 10:50:33 2016 # Current

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Current 2.4.x, Ubuntu 16.04: The output with -verbose is: t/filter/case.t .. 1..4 # Running under perl version 5.022001 for linux # Current time local: Thu Jun 23 10:39:03 2016 # Current time GMT: Thu Jun 23 08:39:03 2016 # Using Test.pm version 1.26 # Using Apache/Test.pm version 1.40 ok 1 #

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Current 2.4.x, OS X: t/filter/case.t .. ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=3, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 0.36 cusr 0.18 csys = 0.55 CPU) Result: PASS > Am 23.06.2016 um 10:08 schrieb Marion & Christophe JAILLET > : > > > > Le

Re: T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Le 22/06/2016 à 22:05, Jim Jagielski a écrit : Subj sez it all... afaict, there are no showstoppers and no outstanding issues (none seen in STATUS, or noted as such on any Email threads). So... anyone opposed to a T tomorrow in the hopes of getting this out to people by the start of next

T 2.4.23 tomorrow (Thurs) ??

Subj sez it all... afaict, there are no showstoppers and no outstanding issues (none seen in STATUS, or noted as such on any Email threads). So... anyone opposed to a T tomorrow in the hopes of getting this out to people by the start of next week??